New Report on Radiation in the Pacific | FerrariChat

New Report on Radiation in the Pacific

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by Piper, Jan 22, 2014.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Piper

    Piper Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 6, 2010
    24,882
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Bob
    #1 Piper, Jan 22, 2014
    International marine science organization releases report on radiation in Pacific Ocean

    International marine science organization releases report on radiation in Pacific Ocean

    (NaturalNews) If you've heard about Fukushima radiation spreading to the Pacific Coast of North America but were "corrected" by sources both official and expert that this was based more on rumor than reality, then consider the information presented at the October 2013 North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) annual meeting.

    Researchers from Fisheries and Oceans Canada confirmed that the radioactive plume from Fukushima is indeed reaching the shores of Canada and the United States - and was detected at least six months ago - carried both in the ocean surface water and the atmosphere on similar but slightly different courses.

    In a presentation titled "Communicating the forecasts, uncertainty and consequences of ecosystem change," (read here: http://www.pices.int) the Canadian researchers gave evidence that the bulk of radioactivity from Fukushima is shifting almost entirely from the western portion of the North Pacific (Japan) to the eastern portion (North America) over the course of the next five years. As of 2012, it had already reached the central region of the Pacific Ocean, and a previously unpublished map shows that, as of 2013, it had reached the shores of Alaska and British Columbia, with the most intense area of the plume yet to arrive.

    The Fall 2013 discussion centered around competing calculations of the severity of effects from cesium-137, based around two differing models of the radiation's trajectory. The first, published by German researcher Erik Behrens and his colleagues at the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in 2012, drastically understates the potential dangers, predicting only modest levels of 2 becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m^3) by 2015 for the 49th parallel near British Columbia and Washington state - scarcely above the background levels from the continued fallout of Chernobyl.

    Meanwhile, the second, published by Vincent Rossi and other colleagues from the Climate Change Research Centre in 2013, presents a much more consequential picture. It predicts alarming maximum levels reaching 25 Bq/m^3 at their monitoring station in British Columbia by 2015 and peaks above 30 Bq/m^3. Cesium levels at the 30th parallel - reaching Baja California in Mexico - wouldn't peak until about 2019, though projected maximum levels would reach only about 15-20 Bq/m^3.

    The amount of atmospheric cesium being transported across the ocean via winds remains the unknown yet potentially greater factor. It partially explains the drastic difference in projections, as there are no monitoring stations for airborne radiation in the Pacific and no reliable methods of predicting the scale of its effects. Further, it has only recently been publicly admitted that 300-400 tons of contaminated water have been pouring into the Pacific per day since the meltdown began in March 2011.

    The fact is that the initial findings of radioactivity from Fukushima on the shores of Alaska, British Columbia, California and Mexico - confirmed privately within the scientific community months ago - are just the beginning. They are consistent with previous predictions of cesium-137 hitting the West Coast of the continental United States in late 2013 and early 2014. Scientists have acknowledged that it will continue to spread into the Arctic Ocean, reaching eastern Russia and eventually pouring into the Atlantic Ocean.

    All models point to increased radiation from here on out. Just how bad it will get remains to be seen, but red flags were raised last week when health officials dismissed concerns about readings taken in San Francisco and posted on the Internet that showed levels as high as 150 counts-per-minute - about five times higher than normal background radiation levels.

    Though public authorities continue to ignore warning signs - and refuse to inform the public about the scientific findings in order to quell panic - these radioactive nucleotides bioaccumulate in the food web, and in the human body, and should not be so handily dismissed.

    Above normal levels were already detected in milk from the West Coast two years ago, tipping off the scientific community to the fact that rainwater, dairy, produce and meat supplies were already being hit with cesium-137, iodine-131 and possibly strontium-90. Bioaccumulation can greatly concentrate the amounts of radiation present in the environment, such that exposure to cesium through milk or meat - which aggregates the total amounts of radiation present in the water, grass, hay etc. consumed by the cow - could reach dangerous levels in humans.

    Sources for this article include:

    Turner Radio Network

    ENENews.com ? Energy News

    http://www.pices.int

    IOPscience

    ScienceDirect.com | Search through over 11 million science, health, medical journal full text articles and books.

    http://rt.com

    EnviroReporter.com

    Science.NaturalNews.com - Conduct powerful scientific research in mere seconds for your book, blog, website article or news report.

    Learn more: International marine science organization releases report on radiation in Pacific Ocean
     
  2. Scotty

    Scotty F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2003
    9,884
    Oregon
    Full Name:
    Scotty Ferrari
    #2 Scotty, Jan 22, 2014
    An Oregon coastal community (I can't recall which one) got community funds together and bought a geiger counter, which can be checked out.
     
  3. Piper

    Piper Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 6, 2010
    24,882
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Bob
    #3 Piper, Jan 22, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  4. 4th_gear

    4th_gear F1 Rookie

    Jan 18, 2013
    4,425
    Full Name:
    Michael
    #4 4th_gear, Jan 24, 2014
    The Japanese Govt and TEPCO were lying through their teeth throughout the ordeal. Unfortunately at this point, you can't even be sure the US Govt will give you a straight answer because of the potential implications.

    If you have concerns about radiation you should first educate yourself about the various types of radiation, the nature of the radiation particles and understand which ones under what circumstances are of health concern. Assessing radiation risks from Fukushima is a very complex topic that requires much knowledge and skill to reliably put into practice and it's about much more than waving a Geiger counter in the air.

    You then need to find out which radioisotopes were released from Fukushima, their half-life duration and look up the specific radioactive decay characteristics of those isotopes and the energy levels of the emitted particles. You should be aware of the chemical or physical properties of the radioisotopes because they determine how those particles will travel and where you will more likely find them. You need to understand it's not just gamma radiation you should be concerned with but that alpha and beta emissions are also hazardous and have the potential to be much more worrisome than gamma radiation.

    You should understand how Geiger counters work and realize that not all Geiger counters are able to pick up alpha and beta particles.

    Educating yourself about radiation risks is something that intelligent people should do today because our governments are failing us as the world becomes ever more complex and chaotic. However, you should go about doing all of this in a calm and detached fashion before you fret about being personally exposed to Fukushima fallout. Only after you are confident of your knowledge and ability should you seriously assess your personal exposure otherwise the experience will likely freak you out more than it should.
     
  5. JCR

    JCR F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Mar 14, 2005
    10,017
    H-Town, Tejas
    #5 JCR, Jan 24, 2014
    Another retard with a Geiger counter. Its an alarmist video that has already been debunked and demonstrates nothing more than normal background counts. The CPM is measuring what? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc.? What's the dosage? Worthless...
    http://xkcd.com/radiation/
     
  6. David_S

    David_S F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 1, 2003
    11,260
    Mountains of WNC...
    Full Name:
    David S.
    #6 David_S, Jan 24, 2014
  7. 4th_gear

    4th_gear F1 Rookie

    Jan 18, 2013
    4,425
    Full Name:
    Michael
    #7 4th_gear, Jan 24, 2014
    SEI does make good equipment. His meter can usefully detect alpha and beta but was almost definitely measuring gamma radiation in his video. To measure alpha and beta emissions, the detector (probe) has to be within 1 cm of the source (essentially nose to the ground). That's one reason why it's so difficult to tackle alpha ad beta emitters.

    To compare against background, he needs to know or have done control readings of normal background for that location as every location is different and will vary depending on time of year/day, solar activity…etc.. Compared to places where I have lived, his readings were definitely higher than normal. The way his readings fluctuated depending on the direction he pointed his meter also inferred a nearby source, which is abnormal and of possible concern.

    Dosage is of concern only AFTER you have determined likelihood of significant exposure. If emissions are consistently higher than health guidelines and/or show a rising trend, I would not hang around to determine dosage.

    It is worthwhile to own a good meter if you live in areas that can be exposed to radiation issues. For instance, I would definitely monitor for radiation exposure if I lived near or down-wind from a reactor facility.
     
  8. David_S

    David_S F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 1, 2003
    11,260
    Mountains of WNC...
    Full Name:
    David S.
    #8 David_S, Jan 24, 2014
    4th_gear/Michael: Good followup!

    I posted my link without any judgement of the video simply to give those interested more info on the "geiger counter" being used.

    You are absolutely correct in stating that alpha and beta emissions need to be read in a very close proximity (hence, they call portable devices to detect such things "friskers.")

    So, quite clearly the measured radiation as shown is from a gamma source. At that point, the questions would be: what does the CPM scale really equate to, is the observed level noticeably greater than normal background levels, and are such levels hazardous?

    Can tell you for sure - based on some of the temperature inversions lately in my neck of the woods, any Air Particulate Detector on any US Navy nuclear powered ship in the area would be alarming - simply due to the sudden buildup of naturally occurring radon and its decay daughters.
     
  9. WILLIAM H

    WILLIAM H Three Time F1 World Champ

    Nov 1, 2003
    35,532
    Victory Circle
    Full Name:
    HUBBSTER
    #9 WILLIAM H, Jan 25, 2014
    This seems to be Al WhGore's new enviro scam
     
  10. Piper

    Piper Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 6, 2010
    24,882
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Bob
    #10 Piper, Feb 2, 2014
    That reminds me of the time I was on hole 5 here at River Creek and mentioned something about nutrition to one of the guys in my group and he said "you must be one of those global warning greenies". I'll tell you the same thing I told him. I fail to see the connection.
     
  11. kylec

    kylec F1 Rookie
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 9, 2005
    3,582
    Orlando
    #11 kylec, Feb 4, 2014
    It's a state of mind.
     
  12. 4th_gear

    4th_gear F1 Rookie

    Jan 18, 2013
    4,425
    Full Name:
    Michael
    #12 4th_gear, Feb 5, 2014
    One of my formal professional backgrounds is marketing. In marketing, a basic tool is to essentially differentiate all people based on specific criteria, for instance, by age, by marital status, by income, by political affiliation, by profession,…etc.

    You can also differentiate people by how they respond to their environment. Two criteria come to mind:

    - people can be differentiated by whether they choose to control their environment to their satisfaction or choose the path of least resistance.

    - people can be differentiated by whether they prefer to accept reality or ignore what doesn't suit their agenda.
     
  13. ProRallyCodriver

    ProRallyCodriver Formula 3

    Oct 25, 2005
    1,250
    Alexandria, VA
    Full Name:
    Dave Shindle
    #13 ProRallyCodriver, Feb 5, 2014
    Paging Mr Godzilla, paging Mr Godzilla party of one.
     
  14. Piper

    Piper Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 6, 2010
    24,882
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Bob
    #14 Piper, Feb 7, 2014
    Non sequitur. One can care about one's health and what one puts in one's body, be concerned over all sources, air, land and sea without being a greenie of any kind. Like commenting at a stranger buying an all natural burger that they must be against Keystone.
     
  15. ProRallyCodriver

    ProRallyCodriver Formula 3

    Oct 25, 2005
    1,250
    Alexandria, VA
    Full Name:
    Dave Shindle
    #15 ProRallyCodriver, Feb 7, 2014
    I drive way too fast to worry about nutrition or radiation.

    The one blog that may be related I found fascinating was a couple rare deepsea fish washing ashore in CA just because rare species was interesting. Makes sense the bottom feeders would be most effected. Note to self: Don't eat the 3-eyed fish.

    So why is "300-400 tons of contaminated water have been pouring into the Pacific per day since the meltdown began in March 2011" still leaking? Solution for pollution is dilution? Hard to believe it has not been contained yet.
     
  16. kylec

    kylec F1 Rookie
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 9, 2005
    3,582
    Orlando
    #16 kylec, Feb 7, 2014
    I agree about what a person consumes. I suppose it depends on what your "nutrition" comment was. I doubt there are many naturopaths that are republicans. At any rate, the guys in your group probably know more about you, your family, lifestyle, and beliefs than the simple post you made on the web.
     
  17. Piper

    Piper Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 6, 2010
    24,882
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Bob
    #17 Piper, Feb 7, 2014
    This guy didn't know me well, sandbagger at our club, the guy with the 7 handicap that's really a +1 and takes home meaningless trophies every year for cheating. That guy. I think we were talking about diet soda. Been a few years.

    To your comment about naturopaths, why not? Why wouldn't a naturopath be a republican? My wife is. I follow her nutritional advice more or less, except for eating way, way too much, and I'm a republican. I get that there is a connotation that someone who eats really healthy must be into living in a teepee on a commune. Funny that way. People are so used to be sold by Food, Inc. and lulled into complacency that it's okay, end up knee jerk reacting to those who actually give a crap, I mean really actually care about what they put in their bodies considering them extremists. It shouldn't be that way. And it shouldn't follow that someone who does would vote for tax and spend liberals. Again, non sequitur. Doesn't follow.
     

Share This Page